FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 46 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 7- cv -0 00 14 -WBH
MARY A. HOW ELL, E xe cu to r of th e Est at e o f Don al d G. Ho well , Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt

Cro ss Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,
ESTATE O F DONALD G . HOW ELL,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt

App el le e,

ve rs us PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t, BRIAN P. RUSH, BRIAN P. RUSH, P.A.,
Defen da nt s- App el la nt s,CAPITAL CITY SUPPLY COM PANY,

NATIONAL CINEMA SUPP LY CORPORATION,
Defen da nt s- Co un te r Cl ai m an ts

Cro ss Cla im an ts

Cro ss Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 19 , 20 12 )
Befo re CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
I. BACKGROUND Cap it al Ci ty Su pp ly Co m pa ny (“ Cap it al Ci ty”), Nati on al Ci ne m a Su pp ly
Co rp or at io n (“ Nati on al Ci ne m a”), Bri an P. Ru sh , an d Bri an P. Ru s h , P .A. (co ll ect iv el y th e “De fen da nt s” ) ap pe al , ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r 1
di rect in g pa y m en t of li fe in su ran ce pr oc eed s to Mar y A. Howel l (“ Exe cu tri x” ) in he r
cap aci ty as th e ex ecu tri x o f t h e e st at e of he r de ceas ed hu sb an d Don al d G. Howel l (“ Howel l” ). Cap it al Ci ty pu rch as ed a “ ke y m an ” li fe ins ur an ce po li cy on th e li fe of
Howel l when he was th e so le own er of Cap it al Cit y
. The po li cy de si gn at ed Cap it al

Capital City and National Cinema have assig ned their interest in the life insurance proce eds 1 to their attorney

Br ian P. Rush.
2Ci ty as th e own er an d be ne fic ia ry of th e po li cy
. Howel l la te r so ld al l of hi s st oc k in

Cap it al Ci ty to Nati on al Ci ne m a. In th e St oc k Pu rch as e Agr eem en t ( “Pu r c ha se Agr eem en t” ), Nati on al Ci ne m a an d Cap it al Ci ty ag reed to tra ns fer th e li fe in su ran ce
po li cy to Howel l “ wit h a ch an ge of be ne fic ia ry to [Ho well ] or [Ho well ’s] de si gn ee.” (Dk t. 20 at 53 .) Afte r th e pa rti es cl os ed th e pu rch as e, ne it he r Cap it al Ci ty no r Howel l

to ok an y st ep s wit h th e i n s u r e r t o ch an ge th e own er de si gn at io n or th e be ne fic ia ry
. F ol lo win g Howel l’s de at h, Nati on al Ci ne m a su bm it te d a cl ai m fo r th e p o l i c y
pr oc eed s. The Exe cu tri x res po nd ed by fil in g su it to es ta bl is h th e es ta te ’s en ti tl em en t

to th e in su ran ce p ro ceed s.
In res po ns e t o t h e pa rti es ’ co m pe ti ng m ot io ns fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e
di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav or of th e Exe cu tri x and di rect ed th at
th e in su ran ce pr oc eed s be pa id to th e es ta te

. The co ur t ag reed wit h th e Exe cu tri x th at

eq ui ta bl e co ns id erat io ns de m an de d th e im po si ti on of a co ns tru ct iv e tru st in fav or of
th e es ta te

. It hel d th at th e Defen da nt s’ cl ai m of r eco rd own ers hi p fa il ed ag ai ns t th e

es ta te ’s cla im

of e qu it ab le own ers hi p.
The Defen da nt s pr es en t th ree arg um en ts in su pp or t of th ei r co nt en ti on th at th e
di st ric t co ur t erre d by g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Ex e cu tri x. Fi rs t,
th e Defen da nt s m ai nt ai n th at th e Exe cu tri x c o u ld no t as se rt an eq ui ta bl e un jus t

en ric hm en t cl ai m i n l ig ht of th e ex pr es s co nt ract be twee n th e pa rti es
. Seco nd , th e

3Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ha s ex pi red on an eq ui ta bl e cl ai m fo r

a co ns tru ct iv e tru st

. Fi na ll y , th e Defen da nt s as se rt th at Cap it al Ci ty is th e be ne fic ia ry
of th e p ol ic y
. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ W e rev ie w a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t by a di st ric t co ur t de no vo .” Gis h v.
Th oma s , 51 6 F.3 d 95 2, 95 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Cr uz v. Pub li x Su pe r Mkt s., In c. , 42 8 F.3 d 13 79 , 13 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 )). “W e ap pl y th e sa m e le ga l st an da rd s as th e
di st ric t co ur t an d vi ew al l fact s an d reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” Id

. (ci ti ng St ri ckl an d v. W at er W or k s & S e wer Bd. , 23 9
F.3 d 1 19 9, 1 20 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) ).
III. DISCUSSI ON
The pa rti es ag ree th at un de r Geo rg ia la w a co ns tru ct iv e tru st is a r e med y to

pr ev en t un

jus t en ric hm en t, no t an i n d e p e n d e nt cau se of act io n. (Ap pe ll an t’s Br. at
18 -1 9; App el le e’s Br. at 8.) As th e Geo rg ia Su pr em e C o u r t m ak es cl ear, a

co ns tru ct iv e tru st “ is no t an in de pe nd en t cau s e o f act io n
. . . bu t a de vi ce by whi ch

pr op ert y mi g h t be reco ve red if [an ] un jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m were to pr ev ai l.” St

. Pau l Mercu ry In s. Co. v. Meeks , 50 8 S.E.2d 64 6, 64 8 (Ga. 19 98 ). Fu rth erm or e, th e
Geo rg ia co ur ts ha ve st at ed pl ai nl y th at “ [a]n un jus t en ric hm en t th eo ry do es no t li e
whe re th ere is an ex pr es s co nt ract .” Se e, e.g

. , Co x v. Ath en s Reg ’l Med

. Ct r., In c. ,

463 1 S.E.2d 79 2, 79 8 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Pryo r v. CCEC, Inc. , 57 1 S.E.2d

45 4, 4 56 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 02 )).
The Defen da nt s ap pl y th at la w to th is cas e an d arg ue th at th e ex is te nc e of th e
Pu rch as e Agr eem en t ba rs th e Exe cu tri x’s cl ai m fo r un jus t en ric hm en t. The Exe cu tri x

res po nd s th at whe n an ex pr es s ag reem en t do es no t co nt em pl at e a fu tu re ev en t a pa rty

may as se rt a cl ai m fo r un jus t en ric hm en t. Sh e arg ue s th at th e pa rti es ’ di sp u t e h e r e
ari se s ou t of ev en ts whi ch oc cu rred af t e r t h e e xe cu ti on of th e Pu rch as e Agr eem en t

an d were no t an ti ci pa te d by th e ag reem en t. So , acco rd in g to th e Exe c u t rix , th e
Pu rch as e Agr eem en t do es no t pr ecl ud e th e im po si ti on of a co ns t r u c ti ve tru st

. W e reject th is arg u men t

. We ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of t h e Ex e c u tri x be cau se th e ex pr es s co nt ract be twee n Howel l, Cap it al Ci ty, an d Nat io na l Ci ne m a pr ecl ud es an eq ui ta bl e cl ai m an d rem ed y in th is

cas e.
The Exe cu tri x ov ers ta te s th e pr in ci pl e th at a pa rty m ay as se rt a cl ai m fo r un jus t

en ric hm en t whe n th e ex pr es s co nt ract do es no t co nt em pl at e a fu tu re ev en t. It is tru e
th at th e co ur t wil l al lo w reco ve ry on an im pl ie d co nt ract th eo ry whe n se rv ic es are
pe rfo rm ed ou ts i d e t h e sc op e of an ex pr es s ag reem en t. Se e Ger de s v. Rus se ll Row e
Co mmc’n s, In c. , 50 2 S.E.2d 35 2, 35 5 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ). Howev er, th is cas e do es

no t pr es en t th os e ci rcu m st an ces
. Here, th e pa rti es ’ co m pe ti ng cl ai m s to th e in su ran ce

5pr oc eed s ar e th e d ire ct res ul t o f Cap it al Cit y ’s fai lu re t o a bi de by the pl ai n t erm s o f

th e Pu rch as e Agr eem en t. The Pu rch as e Agr eem en t req ui red Cap it al Ci ty to tra ns fer

t h e p o l ic y to Howel l wit h a ch an ge of be ne fic ia ry to Howel l or Howel l’s de si g n e e
. The po li cy te rm s req ui re a “ writ te n req ue st ” to th e in su rer to ch an ge th e own er of th e
po li cy
. (Dk t. 20 at 26 .) Cap it al Ci ty b reac he d it s pr om is e to tra ns fer own ers hi p of
th e po li cy to Howel l whe n it fai le d to ta ke an y st ep s wit h th e in su rer to ch an ge th e

own ers hi p o f th e p ol ic y
. Th e cas es th e Exe cu tri x ha s ci te d do no t al lo w a co ur t to tra ns fo rm a r u n - o f

th e-m il l br each of co nt ract act io n in to a su it in eq ui ty to ci rcu m ve nt th e ex pi rat io n of
th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r a br e a c h of co nt ract act io n. Thu s, we ho ld th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d by rem ed y in g th e Exe cu tri x’s eq ui ta bl e cl ai m of un jus t en ric hm en t by
im po si ng a co ns tru ct iv e tru st . Any cla im th e Exe cu tri x m ay

ha ve at la w f

or br each
of co nt ract is ba rred by Geo rg ia ’s st at ut e of li m it at io ns on br each of co nt ract act io ns
. Se e Ga. Co de Ann

. § 9- 3- 24 ; Moo re v. Dep ’t of Huma n Res. , 46 9 S.E.2d 51 1, 51 2- 13 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 19 96 ) (s ta ti ng th at st at ut e of li m it at io ns on br each of co nt ract cl ai m

ru ns fro m th e ti m e th e co nt ract is br ok en (ci ti ng Owen v. Mob le y Co ns tr

. C

o

. , 3 2 0
S.E.2d 25 5, 2 56 (19 84 ))).
The Defen da nt s al so arg ue th at Cap it al C i t y is th e be ne fic ia ry of th e po li cy
. W e ag ree. I n G e o r gi a, th e in su red m us t ch an ge th e be ne fic ia ry of a li fe in su ran ce

6po li cy acco rd in g to th e te rm s of the po li cy or do su bs ta nt ia ll y al l th at is req ui red by

th e po li cy
. Se e Hin kl e v. W oo le ver , 54 7 S.E.2d 78 2, 78 3- 84 (Ga

. C t

. A p p. 20 01 )

2 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. So m e affi rm at iv e act on th e pa rt of th e own er to ch an g e t he
be ne fic ia ry is req ui red

. Mer e in te nt io n to ch an ge th e be ne fic ia ry wil l no t su ffi ce to

wor k a ch an ge
. Id

. (ci ti ng Max wel l v. Bri tt , 31 9 S.E.2d 88 , 90 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 19 84 )). Here, th e po li cy ’s pl ai n te rm s req ui red writ te n no ti ce to th e in su rer to ch an ge th e
be ne fic ia ry de si gn at io n. (Dk t. 20 at 26 .) W hi le th e Pu rch as e Agr eem en t m ay ex pr es s

an in te nt io n to ch an ge th e po li cy ’s be ne fic ia ry to Howel l or hi s de si gn ee, th ere is no

ev id en ce an y st ep s were ta ke n to no ti fy th e in su rer to ch an ge th e be ne fic ia ry
. Und er
Geo rg ia law t he n, Ca pi ta l Ci ty rem ai ns th e b en efi ci ary of th e p ol ic y
. IV. CONCLUSION
The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r th at th e Defen da nt s ch al le ng e on ap pe al di sp os ed of

a va rie ty o f su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns in cl ud in g th e Defen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r

su m m ary ju d g m en t on th ei r cro ss -cl ai m s an d co un te rcl ai m s. To th e ex te nt th e
Defen da nt s be li ev e th e de ni al of th ei r m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th es e cl ai m s

The district court’s opinion sug g ests that the Geor g ia Supreme Court’s opinion in DeRy ke 2 v. Teets , 702 S.E.2d 205 ( Ga. 2010) has modified Hinkle . Howeve r, the rule the cour t established in DeRy ke does not g overn this case
. There , the court stated that if a party by ag ree ment unequivoca lly waives his or her rig hts as a benef iciary of a benef

it plan, this waiver rema ins eff ective
even if the benef

iciary desig nation in the plan rema ins unchang ed. DeRy ke , 702 S.E.2d a t 208. I n this case , the Purchase Ag ree ment did not opera te as an unequivoca l waiver of Capital City ’s claim t o t h e l i fe i n s u ranc e proce eds. I t only g ave Howell the power to desig nate a benef iciary of his choice

. Thus, DeRy ke does not alter the application of the basic rule stated in Hinkle in this case
. 7was erro r, th ey ha ve waiv ed th is arg um en t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jer ni ga n , 34 1 F.3 d
12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ Und er ou r cas el aw, a pa rty se ek in g to rai se a cl ai m

or is su e on ap pe al m

us t pl ai nl y an d pr om in en tl y so in di cat e
. Oth erwi se , th e
is su e—e ve n if pr op erl y pr es erv ed at tri al —wi ll be co n s i d e r ed ab an do ne d.” (ci ti ng
Gre en br ia r, Lt d. v. Ci ty of Ala ba st er , 88 1 F.2 d 15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 89 ))). W e
th eref or e AFFIR M th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r to th e ex te nt it de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t

on th e Defen da nt s’ cro ss -cl ai m s an d co un te rcl ai m s. W e REVERSE th e di st ric t

co ur t’s o rd er i n s o fa r as it gra nt ed su m m ary jud gm en t on th e Exe cu tri x’s cl ai m for

an im pl ie d tru st an d REMAND wit h in st ru ct io ns to en te r jud gm en t in fav or of Cap it al
Ci ty, th e b en efi ci ary of

reco rd , for th e p ol ic y

pro ceed s.
AFFIR MED IN PART, REVER S ED IN PART, AND REMANDED W ITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

8